Two Way Speakers: Is That All There Is?

[Florian]

Mine use sandwich wrap.

I like sandwiches

[E-Stat]

I like sandwiches

A most wonderful European invention!

[JohnMichael]

Cheers to the 4th Earl of Sandwich.

[Poultrygeist]

Here is a link to the free Edge software which is a baffle diffraction simulator commonly used in the DIYaudio community to determine driver/enclosure behavior.

Home of the Edge

[GMichael]

Mine use sandwich wrap.

Pretty much.

[E-Stat]

Pretty much.

I'm actually quoting something that Dr. West mused about when he addressed the Chicago Audio Club some years ago. Something to the effect of "I've spent my life making music with sandwich wrap". The local dealer invited me to dinner the night before where I spent more time with his wife and him. I helped him assemble what were then the brand new Majestics at the meeting.

He is a delightful, soft spoken gentleman who is a musician himself.



I really enjoy meeting the designers of my audio gear. Others whom I've met are Luke and Bea Manley of VTL, Bill Z. Johnson of Audio Research, and Jim Strickland of Acoustat. It really provides you a deeper perspective of the product when you are able to speak with them face to face.

[tube fan]

My list of two ways I love:

[JohnMichael]

I would love to hear the Magico two ways. I also think the YG Acoustics Carmel Speaker might be a two way worth hearing. The Reference 3A Veena should be a musical speaker from what I have heard from their other speakers. The Totem Hawk would also be a contender.

[RGA]

The Veena is quite nice - not a big fan of the Totem stuff unless looks are important.

[tube fan]

My list of great two-ways:

[JohnMichael]

I would love to hear a pair of LS 3/5A's and some of the other British monitors. The new Proac Super Tablette, Spendor or Harbeth mini monitors are of interest. I want to hear a pair of speakers that have that pinpoint imaging and great depth I have read about.

Of course I eventually miss the bass so the Monitor Audio RS6's a 2 1/2 way design is brought out to rock.

[RGA]

The LS-3/5a is very good - but suited for smaller rooms. With the subs you can place them in larger rooms. Bass remains important.

As for inexpensive speakers I would highly recommend the AN AX Two. It has some interesting traits that I think people will respond to. I'd like for people to do some direct comparisons between this $650 loudspeaker and the usual highly rated stand-mount suspects in the $1k-$3k price range.

An illustration of two rather plain Jane VIFA driver compliment in a quasi T-line, quasi horn box loaded box made out of chipboard.

I contemplated the LS-3/5a because it sounds great but the AX Two is right there but offers at least 20hz more in the bass is 90db sensitive and can play a lot louder. The AX Two is basically an Audio Note E (mini-me) version

I was playing Tiesto Club life vol 2 Tiësto Club Life, Vol. 2 - Miami - Walls (feat. Quilla) [Original Mix] - YouTube at pretty high levels the other night and was rather startled just how the speakers could play so effortlessly in the midbass and not lose the plot or doubling or really showing signs of distress and offering up a very solid 50hz bass line. They get dumped on for making products that are deemed too expensive - this one is at least $1500 too cheap.

[emaidel]

In my listening experiences the more drivers and crossovers the greater distance is needed for the sound to integrate. During my early days in this hobby I could not understand why the Dahlquist DQ10 was so popular. I could hear changes in wide multiple octave instruments as parts of the sound was produced by different drivers crossed over multiple times. .

I'm sorry, but I couldn't let this one go by without commenting. I have two systems in my house: one with a pair of B&W 802F Specials, and the other - my main system - with my beloved Dahlquist DQ-10's. The B&W's cost four times as much as the DQ-10's, weigh a ton, and are superbly built, but with my current setup are simply outclassed by the Dahlquists.

In the many years since I purchased them (in 1977), and since my retirement after a little more than 30 years working in the industry, I've heard many different comments about the DQ-10. While the overwhelming majority were positive (just note the exceptionally enthusiastic reviews on the speaker on this website), there were a few that found the speaker "thin," "screechy," and the most common, "lacking bass." The first two were often the result of poor placement, or under-powered amplifiers all but hemorrhaging trying to drive these highly inefficient speakers. The bass issue was instantly solved with the addition of a good subwoofer.

Never - and I repeat, "never" - did I hear anyone ever say they could actually hear tonal differences as various instruments traversed the various drivers. I certainly don't, and after reading your comment, I actually tried to hear such a phenomenon, but couldn't.

Within the past few years, a number of dedicated audiophiles with super-expensive, exotic equipment have heard my system and were astonished at how good these DQ-10's still sound. All I've done to them is have the woofers rebuilt by Regnar, and replaced both the upper bass drivers and the supertweeters.

About two years ago, a good friend of mine, who is a professional musician as well as a college professor of voice and the conductor of the Spartanburg Festival Chorus, happened to come across an old pair of DQ-10's sitting around in one of the classrooms. They were covered in a layer of dust, and not surprisingly, had woofers whose surrounds had rotted.

I suggested that he purchase new woofers (actually, upgraded Advent replacements), which I installed for him. I also found a super "deal" at J&R Music World on a subwoofer which he purchased too.

Though my system tromps his in terms of associated equipment, his "free" DQ-10's sound terrific and still present a coherent, stable and amazingly wide and deep stereo image.

That was a mouthful, but as you can see, I quite like the DQ-10's. Apparently you don't, and you're entitled to like or dislike them, or any other speaker, and to say so. So too am I entitled to like them, and to say so (which I think I did!).

[E-Stat]

Never - and I repeat, "never" - did I hear anyone ever say they could actually hear tonal differences as various instruments traversed the various drivers.

Wellllll, I'm gonna have to agree with him with provisos. First of all, I have always been a fan of the DQ-10. I worked for a hi-fi shop in the 70s and we sold lots of them. I've heard them stacked in an inverted configuration, too. A very popular amplifier used with them was Bongiorno's Ampzilla. While Jon Dahlquist was the chief designer, he had an assistant who worked on later designs and now has his own company - Nola. That is Carl Marchisotto. I've heard a range of his current products up to and including the Grand Reference and have great admiration for the legacy that began with the DQ-10.

The design was certainly ground breaking in the day with separate baffles for each driver to minimize diffraction and carefully selected crossover points to minimize changes in directivity. The only gotcha was that the Motorola piezo could be "spitty" with the wrong amp like a Crown. Where the JBL L-100 used a 5" midrange all the way up to 6 khz, where it noticeably beamed and created a weird soundstage, the DQ-10 ran its 5 incher only to 1 khz before transitioning to the dome midrange. Each driver was used in its optimum range.

On the other hand, we also sold Magnepan, Dayton-Wright and Acoustat. As my moniker suggests, I have always been drawn to the coherency of full range electrostats and have owned various models for the past 35 years. I will never forget hearing JWC's Dayton-Wrights for the first time back in '76. Truly, I find there is no substitute for a full range design when it comes to coherence. I hear the same issue to varying degrees with modern 4-5 ways as well. The range of the human voice spans three of the drivers while a piano spans them all.

However magically Jon "sewed" the drivers together, seams still exist - at least when compared to a speaker with similar bandwidth that has no seams. The Dahlquists, however, remain an excellent speaker in today's world.

[JohnMichael]

I'm sorry, but I couldn't let this one go by without commenting. I have two systems in my house: one with a pair of B&W 802F Specials, and the other - my main system - with my beloved Dahlquist DQ-10's. The B&W's cost four times as much as the DQ-10's, weigh a ton, and are superbly built, but with my current setup are simply outclassed by the Dahlquists.

In the many years since I purchased them (in 1977), and since my retirement after a little more than 30 years working in the industry, I've heard many different comments about the DQ-10. While the overwhelming majority were positive (just note the exceptionally enthusiastic reviews on the speaker on this website), there were a few that found the speaker "thin," "screechy," and the most common, "lacking bass." The first two were often the result of poor placement, or under-powered amplifiers all but hemorrhaging trying to drive these highly inefficient speakers. The bass issue was instantly solved with the addition of a good subwoofer.

Never - and I repeat, "never" - did I hear anyone ever say they could actually hear tonal differences as various instruments traversed the various drivers. I certainly don't, and after reading your comment, I actually tried to hear such a phenomenon, but couldn't.

Within the past few years, a number of dedicated audiophiles with super-expensive, exotic equipment have heard my system and were astonished at how good these DQ-10's still sound. All I've done to them is have the woofers rebuilt by Regnar, and replaced both the upper bass drivers and the supertweeters.

About two years ago, a good friend of mine, who is a professional musician as well as a college professor of voice and the conductor of the Spartanburg Festival Chorus, happened to come across an old pair of DQ-10's sitting around in one of the classrooms. They were covered in a layer of dust, and not surprisingly, had woofers whose surrounds had rotted.

I suggested that he purchase new woofers (actually, upgraded Advent replacements), which I installed for him. I also found a super "deal" at J&R Music World on a subwoofer which he purchased too.

Though my system tromps his in terms of associated equipment, his "free" DQ-10's sound terrific and still present a coherent, stable and amazingly wide and deep stereo image.

That was a mouthful, but as you can see, I quite like the DQ-10's. Apparently you don't, and you're entitled to like or dislike them, or any other speaker, and to say so. So too am I entitled to like them, and to say so (which I think I did!).

Just think if we all heard reproduced music in the same way we would only need one speaker design to please everyone. Since we are sensitive to different aspects of sound we all have our likes and dislikes. I am glad you enjoy your DQ10's.

[emaidel]

. The only gotcha was that the Motorola piezo could be "spitty" with the wrong amp like a Crown.


On the other hand, we also sold Magnepan, Dayton-Wright and Acoustat. As my moniker suggests, I have always been drawn to the .

Sorry, but I didn't mean to cut off all of what you said.

I have to agree with you too. While I preferred Magneplanars and Magnepans to my DQ-10's, there was a considerable difference in cost. While placement of the DQ-10 can radically alter its sound and imagining properties, the placement of electrostatic panels presented even greater obstacles, which, in my living environment, couldn't be overcome.

Insofar as the piezo tweeter, the "spitty" characteristic often did disappear with a better amplifier. Jon Dahlquist himself said that, since they only start to work at 12,000HZ, most people wouldn't hear any difference anyway. I replaced mine because one failed, and and feel that the replacements sounded better, but trying to actually define what it was that was better was a bit difficult.

I know I don't hear anything above 12,000HZ, and that little if any musical material even exists at such frequencies, but there's that elusive character - "air" - that can't be dismissed. With the replacements, there was a decided improvement in the "air" surrounding certain instruments, which made the speaker more musical.

There's another website - sa-cd.net - on which members post their comments on the SACD medium, players and recordings. Some of those members adored certain recordings by a label - BIS - until they learned of the manner in which BIS started out their recordings (actually PCM, and then converted to DSD in post-production) and all of a sudden, the previously hailed-to-the-heavens discs were now alll but unlistenable. Those members have been regarded by others on that site as those who "listen with numbers, and not their ears." I think a similar comparison could be made to the use of the piezo in the DQ-10: simply knowing that it was there, and knowing how awful a piezo sounded when used as a regular tweeter in a cheaper speaker, was enough to claim that it was a poor choice and had to be replaced.

[Mark of Cenla]

I prefer 2.1 systems that use one full-range driver and a subwoofer. In our living room we have tower speakers with a Goldwood 8" full-range driver in the front driven by our Yamaha AVR. In the back of the towers are Dayton Acoustics Reference 8" woofers driven my a Sherwood stereo receiver and crossed over at 100hz by the Yamaha receiver.

In our bedroom, where I do most of my listening, the speakers are 4" Pioneer drivers in homemade boxes. It is driven my an Audiosource Model Amp One/A power amp. The subwoofer is a Sony. I really like the open quality of full-range single drivers. Peace and goodwill.